![]() |
|
![]() |
|
![]() |
||||||
![]() |
![]() |
|||||||||
Costly land clean-up programs in Australia are often over-reactions to low-level public health risks and so provide poor value for money, says Paul McCabe, a principal environmental scientist at HLA ENSR. Paul argues that this unsustainable approach to managing contaminated land and groundwater means that companies are having to spend large sums needlessly on investigations and cleaning sites. This means higher development costs, loss of community assets, anxiety and financial impact for landowners and a diversion of public funding away from activities with greater human and environmental benefits. ’Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent in Australia on assessing, managing, remediating and, increasingly, litigating over contaminated land and groundwater,’ says Paul. ‘There are current examples of Australian Government authorities spending tens of millions of dollars in remediation that is unlikely to save a single life or significantly enhance an ecosystem.Paul, whose paper on contaminated land management costs was recently featured in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald, notes that the current approach is conservative and over-cautious, a ‘better safe than sorry’ strategy. But he says this approach is often not backed up by objective science and can cause real harm to people and impose significant costs to society. He blames this over-cautious approach on many of the stakeholders involved in this field - consultants, regulators, auditors, local government, lawyers, financial institutions, green groups and the media – and called for a better, more rational approach.’The various State regulatory authorities have the greatest potential to improve the sustainability of approaches to remediation and redevelopment of contaminated land by being more technically objective in their decision-making and by including consideration of sustainability and community costs,’ says Paul. However, he adds that it is more likely that consultants and their clients are likely to provide the drive towards a more sensible and sustainable approach. The current situation means that ’some savvy property developers are recognising and capitalising on the opportunity in the marketplace created by over-conservative regulation and management devaluing sites,’ he says.’They are acquiring sites at a discount and aggressively negotiating cost effective solutions with regulators in order to make a profit. Market forces may be leading the way to more rational outcomes. ’
HLA-Envirosciences (HLA ENSR) merged with ENSR Corporation in June this year, the ‘flagship’ operating company of AECOM for global environmental, health and safety services. Through joining forces with AECOM, HLA ENSR offers a greater diversity of services and expanded expertise, as well as access to AECOM’s network of resources and technical services.
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
Edition 1 |
|
|||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
HLA ENSR is the Australian arm of ENSR, a leading worldwide environmental firm, serving industrial clients and government agencies with 2,500 employees from 90 global offices. HLA ENSR serves clients from nine locations throughout Australia, providing comprehensive consulting, engineering, remediation, environmental, health and safety (EHS) management solutions. ENSR is the recipient of numerous industry, client EHS, business achievement and organisational innovation awards. ENSR is part of the AECOM family of companies. For more information, please visit: www.ensr.aecom.com
|
||||||||||
Level 5, 828 Pacific Highway
GORDON NSW 2072 |
||||||||||
![]() |
|
|||||||||
|
|
||||||||||
|
© Copyright HLA-Envirosciences Pty Ltd (HLA ENSR) | Privacy policy |
|
|||||||||
![]() |
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|